The Direct to Video Connoisseur

I'm a huge fan of action, horror, sci-fi, and comedy, especially of the Direct to Video variety. In this blog I review some of my favorites and not so favorites, and encourage people to comment and add to the discussion. If you click on an image, it will take you to that post's image page, which includes many more pics from the film and other goodies I couldn't fit in the actual review. For announcements and updates, don't forget to Follow us on Twitter and Like our Facebook page. If you're the director, producer, distributor, etc. of a low-budget feature length film and you'd like to send me a copy to review, you can contact me at dtvconnoisseur[at]yahoo.com. I'd love to check out what you got.

Announcement

Announcement

Hi everyone, it's been a while since I checked the page, and I wanted to make a few announcements.

First and foremost, it appears a dubious site has claimed the old url, meaning any link in any review that goes to the old mattmovieguy url is corrupt. I'm in the process of trying to remove them all, but it's a lot! It's best not to click on any link without hovering over it first to make sure it doesn't have mattmovieguy in the url.

Second, it appears since my last trip to the blog, Photobucket has decided to charge for third party hosting, meaning none of my images are appearing anymore. That's simply an aesthetic issue, but still annoying.

Thank you all for your patience, and again, hopefully this will all be fixed soon.

--Matt

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Fatal Combat aka No Exit (1997)

A Jeff Wincott movie always seems like a good idea, right? That was the thinking behind watching this one, the more Wincott, the better. Our friends at Comeuppance Reviews and Explosive Action have both covered this as well, if you're looking for a second and third opinion.

Fatal Combat is a forced to fight movie about a professor who teaches the peace first warrior philosophy, Jeff Wincott, but is captured by the villainous Armstrong, a man who runs a prison/death match TV program in the arctic. Now Wincott's peace philosophy is put to the test. Will he bow down to Armstrong, will he fight back, or will he kill him with kindness?

I didn't really care for this one. First off, the forced to fight construct never really works for me, because by nature it makes the hero weaker; and here we get tons of the hero getting beaten up by a loser hatchetman and making idle threats to the villain that we know won't get him anywhere until we hit the 80 minute mark, when he suddenly needs to turn the tables so we can wrap up the film. This is especially disconcerting when we're talking about someone who's as awesome as Jeff Wincott is. I understood the idea of wanting to put Wincott's character in a situation where his philosophy is put to the test, but I think a better way to do that would've been a Most Dangerous Game construct, with a villain way off in a guarded compound and Wincott having to fight his way to him. The Most Dangerous Game construct brings me to problem number two: the lack of action and good fights. More of the film was spent training, prisoners talking about their plight, and Wincott talking to the head baddie about how crazy he is. That Most Dangerous Game construct would've given us a constant stream of fights, keeping the action fresh and preventing the plot from becoming too stale. Finally, this was a little too dark for my liking, and I wouldn't have minded that, if there had been a payoff at the end, but we didn't really get that either. Worst offender: a prison rape of Wincott's friend at the hands of Sven-Ole Thorsen, which wasn't really necessary to enhance the plot, meaning you're talking about a gratuitous prison rape scene-- never a good thing. It was like dark for the sake of being dark.

All of that is a shame, because it wastes Jeff Wincott for the most part. He's great as a professor, he's great beating up dudes to protect his wife, and he's even great talking philosophy and training; but he's not great constantly defeated and getting beat up by much lesser dudes. The main baddie's hatchetman was a total tool. Wincott should be beating that guy down, not getting hit over the head by the guy's nightstick. When we think of Wincott's best stuff: Last Man Standing, Mission of Justice, and Martial Law II, we see a dude who kicks much more ass than has his ass kicked. Sounds like a winning formula to me, right? Give Wincott a cigarette, a scowl, shirt optional-- right ladies?--, and a room full of stuntmen ready to be knocked out.

Sven-Ole Thorsen is probably the next biggest name in this-- also had Richard Fitzpatrick as the main baddie, and he wasn't bad. Thorsen played the classic big, evil fighter our hero has to overcome. In the first scene he's in, he has on these sweet ski goggles and a winter hat. Problem is, he's also wearing tight black stretch pants. Ouch! What, were the leopard print ones at the cleaners? Not quite the fanny pack, but I'd say worse than the pants Sasha Mitchell had in Kickboxer 3.

The music in this was pretty sweet, including "No Exit", the theme/training montage song. Think not quite 80s Hair, but more like 80s Corporate Rock, like a band that would open for Survivor or something. That was pretty sweet though, and I can listen to that crap all day. When it was more background music, it was like Skin-a-max stuff, only with a louder drum track. You know the kind, heavy guitar, solos that might be done by a guy in an over-sized blazer with long, curly hair. I wonder if they thought that too, and added the drums to make it seem more action oriented.

I spent five years as an undergrad pursuing my degree from 1997-2002, and another year doing grad work in 2005, and if I had had Jeff Wincott for a professor, I would've done another five years and racked up even more student loans. How great is that, taking a course with Wincott? Much cooler than Steven Seagal as a professor in Out for a Kill (though that movie is far superior to this one by virtue of the fact that Seagal decapitates an old man by throwing a samurai sword from a second story window at him). Here's my pitch: Wincott as the next Indiana Jones. I can hear the Nazis shaking at the thought.

This is a no go for me. Not enough action, a plot construct that shows our hero getting his ass kicked more than he's kicking ass, and dark for the sake of being dark all adds up to a pile of blah. As far as I can tell, this is only available on VHS here in the States, and that would be under the Fatal Combat name; there is a Region 4 version (and maybe Region 2) on DVD, and that would be under the No Exit title. Whatever the name, it's all bad to me.

23 comments:

I had to go back and re-read my old review - gee, hasn't my writing style changed a bit since then? - and it looks like I pretty much agreed with you. In fact I even said "Not worth your time". I'm trying to locate the new-release in Australia $2 DVD of Martial Outlaw and make that happen sometime shortly as well.

I'm in the minority, but I always liked this one. For one thing, Wincott doesn't teach violence is BAD, he teaches that it's unfortunate but sometimes necessary as the very last resort. Refreshing and honest. And he actually keeps this philosophy to the end, which is why I think the rape scene was necessary. The rape made it clear that Darcona wasn't just another kidnapped victim of Armstrong, so Wincott had no real problems taking care of him (even smiling and throwing a oneliner), but still had issues with Armstrong. So I liked Wincott's character and thought the rape DID advance the plot. I also think Wincott had to get his butt kicked a few times, since he was so reluctant to resort to violence. It wasn't until in the final fight when there was something personal (the wife) at stake.

I think Wincott wanted to try something different here and they were going for something deeper, but most guys just wanted another Mission of Justice. I like them both, but for very different reasons. This is not a 90-minute fight fest, but (not counting marketing) I think it never tried to be. It played by different rules than non-stop action flicks, but sticked to those rules from beginning to end, which is pretty rare.

I think this is a first here at the DTVC, because it looks TJ like, in your attempt to defend it, you may have made the case for us who didn't like the movie better than we did when we told people to pass. Let's start with the gratuitous rape scene. My first instinct is to say: "Thorsen's character was sufficiently bad that any more badness he would've gained through the rape scene was nominal at best"; but looking at it from your way, it actually betrays the movie's sentiment that violence is only good in certain situations. Essentially, in the film's poor attempt to be "dark", they gave Wincott an easy way out, and in essence moved the plot backwards. The tougher, more conflicted way to go would've been to make him fight the football player, or maybe make Thorsen less a bad guy, really putting Wincott's violence unless completely necessary philosophy to the test.

Really, in defending this movie by calling it deeper than the usual Wincott fare, you reveal how not deep it really was, how much it backed off and gave Wincott the easy way out. Of course, none of the things you say make up for the fact that the action was severely lacking, and this would never have been a plot of a high enough quality to make up for that lack of action.

What this tried to be and what it was were two different things, and what it was was short of the mark.

I've always wanted to get on a Wincott kick (no pun intended) but there are just too many Gary Daniels, Don The Dragon, and Jeff Speakman movies I have to see first before I make my way into the world of Wincott

Yeah, it's definitely tough, which is why we only have 9 up here. I kind of have this unofficial thing going, where I want to keep the David Bradley number and the Jeff Wincott number roughly the same, so if I do a movie by one I'll do one by the other soon after. Kind of like what I do with Haim and Feldman.

A good and thoughtful comment. And you are correct. This tried to explore some deep themes while also being a popcorn-actioner. They don't mix, the film didn't work. My excuse: this was the first time I saw Wincott as an action hero. Martial Law 2/Martial Outlaw/Mission of Justice were not released here and Open Fire was really cut to shreds. So I didn't know what to expect from him. Also, I had just seen Abraxas(!) from Damian Lee (and Thorsen), so my expectations weren't that high...

This had a lot of cop outs. The ending, the fact that all guys seemed to be abducted and were there unwillingly but only our three main characters were true "good guys", the design of the challenges (one where someone HAS to die and one where Wincott can just leave him alive) etc... But I still think this needed that extra bit of desperation to fuel Jason's escape (and death), which then pushed Wincott over the edge.

By the way, as an aspiring writer yourself, if you look at films like this... The Running Man, The Condemned, Death Race etc... All had innocent men as leads. But, say, in The Running Man, weren't the "hunters" basically "the good guys"? Did they know what went on behind the scenes? I mean, what if a game like that would exist without foul play and the winner would indeed get freedom? Who would lose? The players would otherwise die in prison anyway. The "hunters" were apparently volunteers. And no-one is forced to watch the show. Would it still be wrong/immoral? And even here there's the question what the subscribers would do if they knew Armstrong killed the contestants. These are themes that certainly can't be explored in a 90min film (despite this and especially The Condemned still trying), but don't you think these themes might have the makings of a pretty good book?

I guess I'm still watching this with "1997 eyes". It introduced me to Wincott and back then the lack of action wasn't that much of a problem since there were more choices. Also, this did fuel some deep conversation between me and my friends, which probably makes me feel that the film is deeper than it is. But I still liked the score, thought the production values were nice considering the low budget, and if an attempt at deeper stuff had to be made, I think mid-90s was a good time for that. These days, with the action films currently offered, I'd just want another Cobra, Commando, Mission of Justice, anything FUN with zero brain activity and lots of oneliners! And, overall, in the Wincott-scale, no matter how you look at it, I think this is way superior to Battle Queen 2020 and Future Fear... But you brought up a lot of good points. Perhaps, if I write a book about these themes one day, I'll steal some of them!

I think what you're talking about is a modern day gladiators theme, which I guess is what a lot of these forced to fight movies are trying anyway, but you're suggesting pulling the "forced" part out. I do like the idea of the person running things not being sinister and trying to fix things, because that always happens in these, right? Even Death Race we have a warden wanting the outcomes fixed, so no can leave.

There are a few other dynamics to be considered too, like where do the contestants come from? If they're criminals, what would the victims' families think of their killers being allowed freedom? Should we allow a convicted killer to roam among us just because he won a fighting tournament? The other thing that could be done is have them be poor people fighting for money. Then you could have all manner of ambiguity, but fewer of the ethical questions the prisoners fighting for freedom would have. Both of them provide intriguing plot scenarios.

It is amazing how much of this is removed when we're stuck with the common theme of evil doer runs forced to fight game and has baddie hatchetman as villain who needs to be killed. And that's where Fatal Combat ultimately fails for me, because it wants to have it both ways, it wants that depth and nuance, even though it's doing everything it can to strip that away by giving us the same black vs. white scenario.

Basically, yes. Poor people duking it out... Wasn't there actually something called Bumfights that caused some controversy some time ago? Something of interest might also be people with terminal disease fighting to provide a better future for their family? I mean, we see these things as immoral, right? We condemn the bloodlust of society which has always been a part of it - and us. These films are interesting since they also condemn that bloodlust, but they're not successful if they don't offer it themselves. The politics don't ruin a film like Cobra because they're so "way out there". The real world is one big grey area, but a good action film is black and white. You do NOT watch Cobra and think what kind of childhood The Night Slasher had, and whether he's also the victim there or anything like that. He's the bad guy, that's it, and that's how it's supposed to be.

Back in 1997, I reviewed No Exit for a local webzine (only gave it two stars calling it "an interesting experiment"). Martial arts were big here back then (as a real hobby) and articles were written about "the true nature of martial arts". I think Wincott's character becomes pretty darn close as far as movie characters go. Most martial arts-guys were either just killing machines or fought in the ring for honor, but Wincott actually talked about real values. I don't remember if we ever came up with a better example back in 1997. I can't come up with one now, come to think of it. When Gary Daniels was considering retirement, he was hoping to do a film which would show the true value of martial arts. I think many real martial artists like Daniels would actually want to do a "successful version of No Exit", but can't find the right script, because, as has been shown, it's impossible to write. It simply has to go into that black-and-white world to provide an ending. So mainly my fascination with No Exit doesn't have much to do with the plot, it was simply Wincott's character. And I'm also a sucker for training sequences with ambient synth music score (the one before Wincott's first fight)! Besides oneliners, synth scores are the thing I miss the most these days.

One more thing... You mentioned killers being allowed freedom? You might not know this, but "a life sentence" in Finland is usually 13 years. In Norway, the maximum is 21 years with 14 being the average. So that Norwegian guy who was in the news just a while ago... The dude was 32yo and killed around 80 people. He will most likely get out before he turns 50. Now, I'm not necessarily saying he got off too easy. Spending over 10 years behind bars... I mean, I probably couldn't spend even one year. But the point is that when these killers get out, the families of the victims are still alive and they have to relive it all over again. So there are some cultural differences here, as well.

Wow, I didn't know that about the differences between the American and Scandinavian justice systems. I know the closest thing we in the States had to what that Norwegian guy did was Timothy McVeigh and his bombing of an Oklahoma City federal buildings. He killed 168 people, including some young children that were in a daycare there. He was executed-- which I'm not saying either way that the Death Penalty is right or not-- but even if he weren't executed, he'd have at least had life without parole. (His crime was a federal offense, and the federal government still has the death penalty. On a state level, some still have it and others have abolished it, like the state I live in, Maine.)

The bumfighting thing you mentioned was a real thing, where a guy gave out money to bums to not only fight, but do things like pull their teeth out with pliers. It was lampooned in Hobo With a Shotgun.

All three of the scenarios you gave: prisoners with life sentences, poor people looking for a break, or people with terminal illnesses wanting to provide for their loved ones, make for intriguing story possibilities. It would take some work though to get deeper and add nuance, like characters becoming friends then having to fight, people who have never killed before now mustering up the courage-- or maybe you mix them, and have poor people fight convicts. Then there's the "we're giving the people what they want" aspect, which would also be much more nuanced if you take the "evil mastermind rigging the fights" element out.

All of the ideas you're bringing up also remove the biggest sticking point for me in the forced to fight scenario: making the hero look less heroic. One, we have no true kickass hero in that sense; but two, because all of this is voluntary, we have no hero getting beaten up by the baddie and his men-- in fact, we're not looking at the protagonist in that way at all.

I like where you took all of this. I can see now what you were saying about Fatal Combat at least making the attempt, but their use of Wincott's character with his peace first philosophy would've worked better in a Dangerous Game scenario, while this would've been perfect with a much more businesslike guy running the game, and maybe Wincott as a guy whose wife is actually killed, and he abandons his philosophy to fight in this game, and maybe then sees the light-- or doesn't.

You know, when this was first released, the synopsis on the VHS cover actually stated that Wincott's wife HAD died and the movie was cut so much, it actually did seem that way. And a good thing it did, since Jason's rape and death were also cut, so Wincott's main motivation in the cut version was his murdered wife, who then turned out to be only kidnapped. Anyway, it's true that making the fights voluntary would remove the "hero" character and therefore there would be no-one to relate to. One might say that there's no "hero" character in films like Lionheart or Damage, since there the fights are voluntary, but at least there's always a noble goal for the hero in those kinds of movies. Usually to get money to support a dead friend's family or something similar. I actually have some issues with films like Pulp Fiction for this very reason. I liked many of the individual scenes and some of the dialogue in that one, but the fate of the characters... I just didn't care about any of them. They live, they die, don't care. At least in this one, I did root for Wincott and wanted him to survive.

Perhaps the best compromise would have been to get rid of Jason very early, kidnapping Wincott's wife immediately and generally do more to convince Wincott that this situation calls for violence? All that within the first 30 minutes and then just focus on the action? That way, even if there would be a "good guy vs good guy"-fight, Wincott could win and remain heroic, since there's the life of his wife at stake.

By the way, that Norwegian guy will most likely end up in a rather new luxury prison with designer furniture, flat screen TVs, large desks etc. People get out from prison and something like 50% end up back there within two months by doing a crime and calling the cops themselves, because their standard of living is simply higher behind bars than out here! Our tax dollars at work...

I got Pulp Fiction as my number two movie of the 90s, so I can't agree with you there.

I think with Fatal Combat, I really like the idea of the wife dying, and him abandoning the philosophy. Maybe, you bring Jason back in, i.e. he enters the competition and tries to bring Wincott back to his philosophy. That could really work. But the competition not being inherently evil allows for some really great stuff.

It's funny that you mention Norwegian prisons, because I've seen the Swedish ones on TV, and they do look nice; but here in the States, where prison sucks, the prevailing opinion still is that it's just some kind of paid vacation for felons. I don't know, being traded for cigarettes doesn't sound like much of a vacation to me. Another thing, despite the nice conditions of Swedish prisons, I believe it is still cheaper than the cost of executing a prisoner here in the States, which is something people often don't consider when debating capital punishment. I'm not sure though, the Swedish prisons might be more expensive. We also have privately run prisons, which is very Fortress like, no?

Don't get me wrong, Pulp Fiction has great scenes and has the important lesson that you do not mess with a man's car, EVER! I simply didn't care about the fate of the characters. And yes, they could have done a lot more with Jason. He was a very underdeveloped character here. Apparently an expert martial artist, but didn't get even one fight. He did that "if you wish to pursue this course of action..."-speech before Wincott, so did Wincott steal it from him? It's also obvious that Doc's action scene was added later, since the rules of that challenge were explained only when Wincott takes on Darcona. The low budget does show. But, again, this is from the director of Abraxas...

This "forced to fight"-thing... Of all the recurring themes in DTV-actioners, I think it's one of the hardest to do right. Very difficult to come up with a good reason for the hero to become involved. But if it's executed well enough, it is fun to watch. I mean, I certainly didn't have any deep thoughts after Best of the Best 2. That's a great example of this genre done right. And what a bad guy! Heck, even today we reference that film constantly. At the gym a friend says "So, you ready? Can we go?", another says "Brakus would stay" and that's that. The workout goes on for another 20 minutes. You just reviewed Double Trouble. True story: I watched a worn VHS of it with a group of guys about two months ago. They didn't want to watch a Barbarian Brothers film since they hated Twin Sitters, but I said "Guys? Brakus would watch" and there were no arguments. We watched it and, hell, it was fun stuff!

Best of the Best 2 was a great one, and I can see where people would still be having fun with it. I just saw a bit of Rolf Moeller in the opening to Tales of an Ancient Empire Albert Pyun just sent me a link to. I'm excited to check him out.

I think what we're seeing here is that the forced to fight scenario could be really good if the "forced" part was removed.

Wasn't BotB 2 toying with that idea? Penn did fight in underground tournaments voluntarily (he apparently just didn't know he might be killed after losing). The game wasn't even rigged there. Hell, Moeller didn't even allow guns.

I think we've realized this is something that can't successfully be brought up in an action film. Penn probably would have fought in BotB2 even knowing he might die (he was an arrogant ass), but they did the right thing, made him unaware of it, thus giving as guys that are more clearly the villains. What we're also seeing here is that there are not many roles where the mental aspects of martial arts would come into play. Like I mentioned, many martial arts-actors look for roles like that and I think Wincott thought he had found one here. But I think the more successful approach is to keep action movies as action movies and tell about the mental aspects in real life interviews etc. Chuck Norris is a pretty good example. Lots of violent films, impressive body counts, sometimes even some racism if the role calls for it (Hitman), but in real life he is active in anti-drug programs and even wrote a book on zen. This goes for other ideologies, also. Seagal might be an environmentalist, but who wants to hear a 5-minute speech in an action film? The better approach would be for these guys to make straightforward action films that the audience likes, get more money and publicity, and then use those to tell about things that they find important.

Overall, though, as much of a disappointment as you and other reviewers found No Exit to be, I think it did offer just enough action for fans and certainly wasn't a financial failure nor responsible for Wincott disappearing from the DTV-action field. I don't know why he stopped being an action hero and why he didn't show his martial arts-skills even in villain roles that would have offered him chances for that. Interestingly, his official site (news-section) doesn't even mention these starring roles in action films, but does mention his extremely brief appearances in bigger films and even his TV-appearances. Perhaps he just didn't want to be known as an action guy, but it was the easiest way to make some extra cash? Who knows...

Part of what you're talking about here goes back to a point I've been making for some time, that action movies come from the Vaudeville tradition, not the dramatic art film tradition. A good action film relies more on the action, the way a good musical relies more on the musical numbers. Would Singing in the Rain be the classic it was with 1/2 to 2/3 of it's musical numbers removed? Definitely not. And it's the same with action movies. I have all manner of high quality indie dramas, comedies, and thrillers that I can turn to when I want something like that, but when I want an action movie, I don't want to be inundated with an over-indulgent plot that's substandard at best. Any action film maker who sees that his or her plot is cutting down on the number of action scenes, they should rethink that story. It's with that in mind that I say Fatal Combat would've been much better in a Dangerous Game format, because as a forced to fight movie, it was more bad drama than it was good action.

I was checking out on some of Wincott's other collaborations with Damian Lee and noticed that we have a weird thing here... I'd say that The Killing Man and No Exit have about the same amount of action in them. For some reason, the film noir-theme and Wincott's character in The Killing Man worked for you, but didn't for me, while the "martial arts-values"-theme and Wincott's character in No Exit worked for me, but didn't for you. Just goes to show that even among fans of the same genre, same actors, same themes etc, there will always, always be disagreements.

Still, I think, especially these days, specialized blogs reviewing DTV-action, horror, sci-fi etc... They are extremely important, because there's so little info about smaller DTV-films available elsewhere. And the marketing is absolute total BS these days! Actors receiving top credit in the film are in it for two minutes? Films advertised as hardcore non-stop action being anything but? Now, we are both huge fans of action films. While I've noticed we usually agree on most things, we might have very different opinions on what a good action scene or what a good action hero is like. We might have different opinions on just about everything from what are good motivations for the hero to the music score, from the editing to using gratuitous nudity. Just about everything. But we can both say whether a film advertised as an action film even has action scenes in it or not. I still like No Exit, myself, but the fact remains that it WAS advertised as a film filled with action and it's a simple fact that it was not that. People have divided opinions of it on IMDb and Amazon etc, but Wincott-fans do deserve to know they're not getting another Martial Outlaw here. I did give the film a more positive review back in the day, yes, but I also made it clear what it's really about and who might like it. I think that's the most important thing. I mean, if only I had read your review on House of the Rising Sun before pre-ordering it on Amazon, which I did based on the cover picture, tagline, cast and (misleading) synopsis......

Yeah, it's definitely one of the things I try to do with the DTVC, get the word out there about some of these, because they are obscure, and often the reviews people put on imdb are more about that person trying to say in as clever or witty a way (or not as is usually the case) how much he or she doesn't like it, without actually saying specifically why. I try to say exactly why I liked or disliked it so someone can make a more informed decision when he or she comes across these in a bargain bin or whatnot. Of course, the biggest reason I started the DTVC is to celebrate these niche movies that we all love so much!

Exactly so. Among my current pet peeves are DVD reviews that focus entirely on the movie (if someone's reading the review for the actual DVD on a site dedicated to DVD reviews, I think the reviewer should realize the reader is already interested in the film and wants to know if the commentary and the features are any good etc.) and professional reviewers who dismiss a film simply because they have some personal issues with something in it or they simply don't like the genre. Maltin, for example, seems to almost always condemn a film that has a "baby in danger"-scene. And Ebert... Perhaps his most revealing review was that of Tom Berenger's The Substitute (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19960419/REVIEWS/604190304/1023) where he doesn't really even review the film, he basically reviews the entire genre. Anyway, I think we can close this case and agree to somewhat disagree on Fatal Combat and agree to agree on surprisingly many things - like fanny packs being bad and mullets being good!

Finally, speaking of truly niche films, if you REALLY want to see something completely awful, here's a small "present":

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=AZTIJOBW

Not going to spoil it, but if you decide to take the chance, the zip is password protected. You should have no problems guessing the password. Crime is a disease, this password is the cure. Yes, this password is indeed the strong arm of the law. Or his nickname. But I must warn you. While I guarantee the contents won't infect your computer, as for your brain... Well, that's another thing entirely. But since you've seen Kaurismaki-films, here's something quite a bit different...